Blazing New Trails - Connexions

304 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LEADERSHIP PREPARATION
schedule. It was suggested that they work in pairs or trios when gathering data. The author and
professor of record for the course gathered data on three case sites as well. In the third session,
teams shared progress on data collection, discussed what they had learned so far, started to
scan their data and relate it to the literature and to background information they had gathered
on their site, wrote individual reflections, and spoke about next steps.
During the spring 2011 semester, the group met in person three times in three to four
hour blocks, just like the first semester. In the first session, they analyzed their data. The
professor explained how to code, categorize and triangulate, and she provided them with an
example of how she had completed this process with one of her three cases. She also gave
them templates and suggested general categories. Teams were given the task of creating a data
record with coded and categorized data to be submitted the second session. In the second
session, teams reviewed the elements of a case study and started to work in class on this
process after seeing an example of a case written by their professor. They also started to talk
about how they would present their findings in a PowerPoint presentation of 30 minutes. For
the third session, teams submitted their case (10-15 pages) and shared results orally with the
class. The professor also shared results of her 3 cases. The group talked about similarities and
differences across the cases and their implications. They wrote individual reflections. During
the process, the research teams worked very closely with their colleagues and the professor
both in person and on-line (through Blackboard). Face-to-face sessions were approximately
one month apart.
ACTION RESEARCH RESULTS
After working with students in the research methods course during the summer and over
the two semesters they were involved in the research study, the following results emerged. At
the end of fall 2010, students shared their first comments. They expressed appreciation for the
opportunity of experiencing the research process first-hand rather than just reading about it.
They also expressed appreciation for the process of working collaboratively rather than
designing and carrying out a study in isolation. They stated that they experienced the research
process as part of an actual multiple case research project of conducting the research, gathering
data, coding, categorizing, triangulating and arriving at conclusions. They realized that
research is labor intensive, yet worthwhile. Those who had been more familiar with
quantitative approaches in the past struggled with a mixed methods approach at first. As a
class, the students noted that what educators say they do in the schools and what they actually
do may be two different things. The students discovered that being culturally proficient is
complex and not easy to describe. They began to look at their own schools with a more critical
eye. They realized that all stakeholders did not share the same idea regarding cultural
proficiency and that parents did not always want what educators thought was best for their
children. They also discovered that many of the school members described cultural proficiency
as celebrations, customs and costumes rather than getting to know people in depth and working
with who they are as learners. Comments included:
This process, so far, has taught me equally as much about leadership as it has about
data collection and analysis. I’ve learned what it means to be a principal, how to
communicate with staff, parents and the community. I know what it takes to recognize
cultures and to celebrate them in order to create a supportive and successful school.